Posts by Brickley Paiste
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The panel is Phil Twyford, Rhema Vaithianathan and myself
Who is myself? Why does he spell his name with a lower-case letter? Wait. Perhaps this odd use of the reflexive pronoun gives gravitas where there is none. Who will be there? Not boring old me, that's for sure. No, it will the exciting myself! Ha ha!
At least Bob's style sounded cool. Pirate ships they rob myself/ Sold myself to the merchant ship ...doesn't quite have the same poetic umph.
Whatever. I'm going to go feed I now and possibly treat I to a glass of wine. Seen. Still. Bombaklat.
-
I was wondering what material matters might have been discussed in front of the Authority ... thanks for the report. Will you be there next week?
Yeah, I'll try to go if I can make it over that far. Counsel for Cook said he might send a junior. We'll see who shows.
Russell, do you have idea why Christopher Harder was there? That added a certain flavour to the mix. He wasn't sitting as an advocate but did caucus with one of APN's witnesses quite briefly.
In any case, from everything I heard, the legal safety of the contractual suspension could be a major issue and would speak to the substantive justification of the dismissal and whether or not it was what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in all the circumstances. The procedural tail waving the substantive dog, as they say.
-
The case is going to resume on Monday morning at 10am. Cook has to lead evidence on damages and humiliation which wasn't provided to APN or the Authority yet -- the Authority member described this as "unacceptable" and "pretty basic stuff". Should be interesting, especially if there is a challenge.
What hasn't turned up in the press is that, from what I heard in the Authority, and correct me if I'm wrong, but under Cook's contract he could only be suspended on pay if there was a suspicion of serious misconduct. There was some discussion as to whether he was suspended for that OR because he refused to hand over his notes. If it was the latter, I'll be interested to hear how a refusal to hand over notes amounts to a suspicion of serious misconduct.
If the suspension has been tainted then the dismissal might be the fruit of the proverbial poisonous tree. It sounds as if he is basically running a pre-determination argument and if the suspension is poo then that won't help the company.
Of course, none of this ended up being reported because all this is a pissing contest between old mates. I have big balls! No, I have big balls! I have the biggest balls! Behold my testicular package!
I agree with Paul and Giovanni.
Will anyone show up for the rest of the investigation? Will anyone read the determination?
-
one of the more notable claims made by Cook (but struck out as inadmissable).
So that is what they were referring to rather obliquely. Thanks for that.
Jock Anderson? He's been covering courts for so long he gets a special pass.
I have no idea who it was. "Special" is probably the nicest way to put it. The Authority Member definitely looked at him as if he was special.
-
Robert, it's Friday ...
A fine day for Stephen Cook's investigation meeting in the Employment Relations Authority.
Pretty dull so far. The best part was when some dude from Truth stood up -- as the Authority member was mid-sentence -- to address the Authority on some of the evidence. I almost jumped under my chair. It was really funny. In the 1500s he would have been executed on the spot for contempt. Fortunately, the Authority has no contempt jurisdiction...
The actual facts of the case sound really sordid and quite sad.
-
Not criminal per se (without fear for safety) but potentially enough to get a restraining order and make further repetition illegal.
Section 21(1)(d) of the Summary Offences Act might apply as well although they would need evidence of intention. The police might still be able to arrest them for it or get a warrant.
-
I'm thinking of taking some popcorn along on Thursday morning.
Do! I don't think anyone even knows the Authority is open to the public. Journalists are never there (or anywhere else for that matter). It would be fun to have a circus. I'll bring Raisonettes.
-
Thursday's Employment Relations Authority case on the matter of former Herald on Sunday assistant editor Stephen Cook's departure from the paper earlier this year.
Thanks, Russell! I'm going to watch for sure. I'll let you know if any stolen medals turn up!!
-
Sorry to interrupt but I have to draw your attention to something.
In the Crimes Act, one will find the following definition:
penis includes a surgically constructed or reconstructed organ analogous to a naturally occurring penis (whether the person concerned is male, female or of indeterminate sex)
Who says these parliamentarians don't know how to party? A naturally occurring penis? Did they get George Carlin in to write that shit? I'm impressed.
Now, the definition of bestiality brings its own fun but we'll save that for another day...
-
Women's Christian Temperance Union-ish about the whole thing.
You're right. My great grandmother was a member. It's in the genes. Who cares if some woman next to me is buying lotto tickets instead of feeding her fetid little under-dressed children.
I'm just over the gasps of people like Kathryn Ryan, who seems to regard the win as one of the deeper and more meaningful human experiences.
Ha ha! I can't listen to her at all anymore. After she interviewed David Sedaris and was so nervous about discussing homosexuality that it sounded as if she might vomit, I just had to call it quits. She who must be obeyed tells me that Kathryn did an impression of an American accent the other morning that was so cringe inducing that she had to gaze out the window and murmur to herself.
Russell, what about my point -- would people care how the jury had behaved had there been a conviction? Most juries convict. Most people in fact plead guilty. I don't think the issue would arise. The problem is that people only see justice being done if there is a conviction, not an acquittal. Both are justice however on the system that we have.
I know you're sick of talking about it, though.
I hear the Court staff were more shocked than anyone and they're usually spot on.